vito Posted November 30, 2017 at 02:02 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 02:02 PM What did you see pop up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted November 30, 2017 at 02:23 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 02:23 PM Attempted amendments included the removal of magazines and ammunition from the definition of "handgun" (this would have led to magazine bans in some states), members of congress being added to the definition of "persons", and an amendment that would have made it so that the only out of state permits recognized would be those of the home state of the person carrying. All three were defeated.I thought that one liner to include congress members in the definition of "persons" seemed silly/egotistical to me at first. But I liked it after more thought. It helps leverage the gun attack on the Republican baseball by reminding all readers that this national reciprocity addresses that issue also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted November 30, 2017 at 07:50 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 07:50 PM I know, I know, I should just read the bill, but real quick question. Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:06 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:06 PM Hi Skinny, Us Tenth Amendment folks twitch a lot over things like this. I love the potential immediate outcome, but struggle in some ways, relying on other provisions to assuage my concerns. One parallel might be found in the variability of state requirements to qualify for a driver's license that is recognized everywhere. Another might be recognition of marriage status, notwithstanding different underlying state procedures. Maybe there is even something to be found in lawyers transferring from one state to another with bar status being honored??? Just thinking at the tiny smartphone keyboard, FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:09 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:09 PM Aren't states required to recognize marriage license? So why not require them to recognize carry license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:16 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:16 PM Aren't states required to recognize marriage license? So why not require them to recognize carry license?Not only required to recognize them, but also required to issue them. Anyone can go anywhere in the country and not only be married but get married if they choose. But, such decisions aren't usually made on logic or the law, they're made on feelings. Guns are icky. Caetano was only decided as it was because the defendant had lots of PC victim cred, and choose a PC nonlethal weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownshoe Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:33 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:33 PM Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkThe way I read it, no. A person who ... is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) ...in any State. In my reading, you have to be entitled to carry in your home state in order to have reciprocity "rights." Edited to add: I'm probably (or most certainly) incorrect about this. See post by kwc, below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:44 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 08:44 PM Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkThe way I read it, no. A person who ... is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) ...in any State. In my reading, you have to be entitled to carry in your home state in order to have reciprocity "rights." I believe this issue has been discussed at length earlier in this thread. Your conclusion isn't consistent with statements by the sponsor, yesterday's debate in the House Judiciary Committee, and the text itself. The text actually allows carrying by: "...a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides..." You deleted the underlined section, which allows carrying by someone who holds a valid licensed or permit from "a State." This isn't isolated to the person's state of residence. The portion you quoted is a clause that allows carrying in other states by those who can carry (they are "entitled" to do so) in their home state without a license or permit (so-called Constitutional Carry states). If you listen to the Committee debate you'll hear extensive discussion on this point, and the pleas to amend H.R. 38 to require licenses/permits from the person's home state. The proposed amendment failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Flag Posted November 30, 2017 at 10:51 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 10:51 PM What happens if the person does not live in a state? Like a Federal District, or a Territory? Is that mentioned/covered in the legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:10 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:10 PM What happens if the person does not live in a state? Like a Federal District, or a Territory? Is that mentioned/covered in the legislation?The legislation doesn’t need to spell it out. H.R. 38 amends Chapter 44 of 18 U.S.C. Definitions for the entire chapter are provided in 18 U.S.C. 921. Section 921 ( a ) ( 2 ) says that: The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:14 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:14 PM Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk The way I read it, no. A person who ... is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) ...in any State. In my reading, you have to be entitled to carry in your home state in order to have reciprocity "rights." Edited to add: I'm probably (or most certainly) incorrect about this. See post by kwc, below. You said "In my reading, you have to be entitled to carry in your home state in order to have reciprocity "rights." Yes, and that's why people in States that have Constitutional Carry can still get a written permit from that State for proof in other States today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:43 PM Share Posted November 30, 2017 at 11:43 PM The Supreme Court could solve all of these issues by ruling that the 2nd Amendment itself gives the right, which cannot be infringed, to all Americans other than minors to carry a firearm anytime and anywhere. But it looks like we will need a Federal law to achieve national reciprocity. I would hope that the law as finally written would include language making it a crime with significant penalties for any official, law enforcement officer or other agent of the state to arrest, detain or otherwise impede a person covered by this law from exercising their rights under this law. Otherwise I would anticipate LEO's and others in states long accustomed to treating ANYONE with a gun as a criminal to continue to do so, Federal law not withstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawman Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:03 AM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:03 AM Bar status in not recognized from state to state. A lawyer needs to become admitted to that state to practice there, or in an individual case can do a pro hoc vice motion (and pay a fee) to be recognized as a valid lawyer for that case only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:06 AM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:06 AM I hope this passes before we need to renew in Illinois. My Utah permit is at least one third the cost, and no $80 for lost or adress change fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted December 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM I know, I know, I should just read the bill, but real quick question. Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkUnder this version, yes, but I'm counting on that being changed in the senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:06 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 02:06 PM The Supreme Court could solve all of these issues by ruling that the 2nd Amendment itself gives the right, which cannot be infringed, to all Americans other than minors to carry a firearm anytime and anywhere. But it looks like we will need a Federal law to achieve national reciprocity. I would hope that the law as finally written would include language making it a crime with significant penalties for any official, law enforcement officer or other agent of the state to arrest, detain or otherwise impede a person covered by this law from exercising their rights under this law. Otherwise I would anticipate LEO's and others in states long accustomed to treating ANYONE with a gun as a criminal to continue to do so, Federal law not withstanding. Agreed. A nation-wide bill for Constitutional Carry to reinforce the 2nd Amendment would sure make the terms/conditions simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted December 1, 2017 at 05:47 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 05:47 PM I know, I know, I should just read the bill, but real quick question. Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkUnder this version, yes, but I'm counting on that being changed in the senate. I was thinking the same: This may get passed in the House, but for the Senate, it's going to need 60 votes to get past a filibuster. The "a state" clause may get sacrificed to get to 60 in the Senate. Also, if passed and signed into law, who's to say NYC will honor it? It will be same question that's often discussed here for Chicago's mag limit: Who wants to test their rights in court? Until this is passed and then addressed by the SCOTUS on the merits of the 2nd Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause, we're not done. This is just the 1st step. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Key here is, "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved". Sounds to me like that's exactly what we're trying to do here, prescribe how CCW should be recognized across state lines. Nothing short-circuiting the Constitution here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted December 1, 2017 at 08:34 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 08:34 PM The Supreme Court could solve all of these issues by ruling that the 2nd Amendment itself gives the right, which cannot be infringed, to all Americans other than minors to carry a firearm anytime and anywhere. But it looks like we will need a Federal law to achieve national reciprocity. I would hope that the law as finally written would include language making it a crime with significant penalties for any official, law enforcement officer or other agent of the state to arrest, detain or otherwise impede a person covered by this law from exercising their rights under this law. Otherwise I would anticipate LEO's and others in states long accustomed to treating ANYONE with a gun as a criminal to continue to do so, Federal law not withstanding. Agreed. A nation-wide bill for Constitutional Carry to reinforce the 2nd Amendment would sure make the terms/conditions simple. Sure. But perfect is the enemy of good. I will enthusiastically support any bill which broadens our 2nd amendment rights from the current very narrow portion that are recognized today. Any version of the National reciprocity bill is better than what we have currently. If some compromise gets the bill passed, it is worth it. But we'll see. This bill have a very rough road ahead. While it's chances in the House are now pretty decent (but still far from a sure thing), the chances in the Senate are very rough. There is no way it can pass without wooing a good handful of Democrats to get past filibuster, and there are very few pro-2a Democrats on the national level. And even among Republicans, this will have trouble with many RINOs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:13 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:13 PM When will OConnell finally get the guts to do away with the filibuster rule once and for all. I have ZERO doubt that the Dems will do away with this rule as soon as they have 51 votes in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:44 PM Share Posted December 1, 2017 at 11:44 PM When will OConnell finally get the guts to do away with the filibuster rule once and for all. I have ZERO doubt that the Dems will do away with this rule as soon as they have 51 votes in the Senate. He can't eliminate it for fear he might need it in a year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 2, 2017 at 12:24 AM Share Posted December 2, 2017 at 12:24 AM He can't eliminate it for fear he might need it in a year or so. ^^^ This. ^** And if/when the Dems regain control of the Senate, I doubt they will eliminate it either for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted December 2, 2017 at 03:18 PM Share Posted December 2, 2017 at 03:18 PM When will OConnell finally get the guts to do away with the filibuster rule once and for all. I have ZERO doubt that the Dems will do away with this rule as soon as they have 51 votes in the Senate.Agreed vito. I also have that same ZERO doubt. Tick Tock, McConnell...what are you waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipp Jones Posted December 2, 2017 at 04:37 PM Share Posted December 2, 2017 at 04:37 PM They passed a tax reform bill in the Senate this morning 51-49. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted December 2, 2017 at 05:35 PM Share Posted December 2, 2017 at 05:35 PM NRA ILA Article U.S. House of Representatives to Vote on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Next Week https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:49 AM Latest word still indicates a possible vote on H.R. 38 (and the Fix NICS bill, H.R. 4477, which was joined to it yesterday in the rules committee) during today’s House session. The House of Representatives live streams from the floor for anyone interested in watching. If you happen to tune in and learn of pending action, please announce it in this thread. http://houselive.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:54 AM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 10:54 AM If you are looking for a little entertainment, John Richardson listed on his blog the amendments proposed yesterday in the Rules Committee along with a video link for the proceedings. Pure theater... http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2017/12/proposed-amendments-to-hr-38-that-rules.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted December 6, 2017 at 02:37 PM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 02:37 PM Anyone know what time these clowns get to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:00 PM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:00 PM I know, I know, I should just read the bill, but real quick question. Could residents in may (not) issue states like CA, NY, NJ, etc circumvent their home state permit requirement and go snag a Utah or Arizona and have it be recognized in their home state? Or does it (currently) require a permit from one's own home state? If the latter is true, it'd be pretty messed up that an Illinois resident can carry in San Francisco or LA but a resident of San Francisco or LA cannot carry in their own city. If the former is true, it moots the entire purpose of the state licensing regimes. This bill creates a bit of a Tenth Amendment issue. Long-standing tradition of states handling permits with no federal oversight. Suddenly the federal government wants to jump in and tell states what they can and cannot do with regard to permit recognition/reciprocity. Sent from my VS987 using TapatalkHow about this? The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has not limits on which State a citizen can bear arms (they had 13 States then, so it wasn't like State's rights were being violated then...) Any State laws that infringe on any American citizen to bear arms in their state is Unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Powers of citizens bearing arms in any State is authorized by the Constitution, so it can not be prohibited by the States or the people.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolnick Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:23 PM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:23 PM Until this is passed and then addressed by the SCOTUS on the merits of the 2nd Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause, we're not done. This is just the 1st step. And with this first step, you'll establish a large precedent of concealed carry. The larger the base, especially with a year or two of no Dodge City shootouts by licensed carriers, the harder it will be for SCOTUS to rein it back in. Next step is to replace one liberal (Gensburg) judge with a conservative. With a solid 5 conservatives plus Kennedy, it will be harder for Kennedy or Roberts to swing against the momentum (and if they do, so what?). Once that solid conservative majority happens, THEN it will be time to bring all the 2A cases to the Supremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:46 PM Share Posted December 6, 2017 at 03:46 PM Anyone know what time these clowns get to work? Legislative actions begin at noon EST, with first votes scheduled around 1:45 pm EST. If I am reading the calendar correctly, it looks like H.R. 38 is the prominent legislation on today's docket, starting with a one-minute speech and allowing an hour for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.